Elwin Hermanson

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for a while now listening to some of the Liberal members who spoke. I have to admit that most of what they say sounds like it has been written by a speech writer in an office tower who is totally unattached to Canadian reality.

There is an occasional paragraph in some of the speeches where a few words have been added, but most of it sounds like pure political drivel by someone in the finance department trying to justify a rather uninspiring budget with accolades that are not shared by Canadians and which do not reflect the response Liberal members are getting from their constituents.

When looking at the budget we begin to see there are perhaps some changes coming for old age pensions and for CPP. There are some signs that perhaps the Liberals will not keep their promises. Liberals are great for not keeping their promises. They changed their minds on the free trade agreement. They said it was terrible and now they support the free trade agreement.

They said some things about the GST and they have been back pedalling awfully hard on that one. Why should Canadians believe one thing these Liberals are saying?

I believe that because of the fiscal mismanagement of the country, one day the Liberals will have to get up in the House and say: "Sorry, old age pensioners, you will lose your old age pension even if you are low income". They will say: "Sorry, we mismanaged your CPP funds and you will lose them. We meant to tell you sooner, but we just did not get around to it". They will tell our young people: "Sorry, we have to raise your taxes. We did not do things quite right in the past. It just kind of crept up on us. We did not mean it to happen. That is the reality of the times".

Our debt is increasing at an enormous rate. In spite of all the drivel we hear from the Liberal members, the truth is our debt has increased by almost $100 billion since the Liberals took over and the interest payments on the debt are approaching $50 billion every year. This from a government that only gets a little over $100 billion in revenue each year and is spending about $160 billion each year. It is atrocious. It is terrible.

I wish the Liberals would come to their senses and recognize the seriousness of the situation and be prepared to do something constructive about it before they lose all of the so-called social safety nets they claim to be the champions of. It will be the Liberals who will destroy all of our social safety nets by pretending there is nothing wrong with their budgets or with the ongoing deficits they have been ringing up not only in this decade but in previous decades to the tune of almost $600 billion to date.

I had to get that off my chest because I am extremely upset that they would mislead the Canadian people by letting them think everything is okay.

I want to direct most of my speech today to the agricultural perspective of the budget. As agriculture critic I am very concerned about what the budget states with regard to agricultural issues. There are a few issues that need to be discussed today.

There was a formal announcement in the budget of the government selling off 13,000 grain hopper cars. This was not much of a surprise because it had been discussed and the government's intention had been made known before the budget was release. It became very clear the government was prepared to go ahead when the budget was released in March.

The so-called SEO group, the senior executive officers, made up of executives of the railways, elevators and other key players in the grain industry was set up last year by the federal government to develop a set of recommendations regarding future grain transportation systems in western Canada. In its set of recommendations to the Department of Transport and Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food last fall, the disposal of the hopper car fleet was considered. The railways would purchase these 13,000 cars on the condition that they be used to transport western grain. The cars would be sold for $100 million and the purchase cost would be recovered over five years through an approximate one dollar a tonne rate increase in transporting grains.

This all seems to be going down the drain. The recommendations for the car disposition seems to be derailed and any idea that the railways will be receiving the cars is very slim at the current time, which is not necessarily bad. Subsequently, a coalition of farm groups has banded together to develop proposals to buy the hopper cars. The primary objective of the coalition is that all 13,000 cars be sold together, that they be operated as a common fleet and that the first priority of use will be moving western Canadian agriculture products.

Members of the producer coalition have been critical of the federal government, suggesting it is difficult to develop a business plan or arrange financing until they know what the selling price of the cars will be.

I might use the illustration of a used car salesman. If any member of the House was to buy a used car and went to a used car lot, they would see a car and would ask the salesman the price of

the car. Our used car salesman, the minister of agriculture, said he wants to sell his used hopper cars to Canadian farmers but that there is one little catch, he will not tell them the price of these hopper cars. He wants the farmers to put together the financing by going to the Farm Credit Corporation or some leasing company and make all the arrangements and then he will finally get around to talking price a ways down the road.

We have heard of some pretty shady used car salesmen in the past but I certainly do not think farmers appreciate the used hopper car sales approach that is being used by the minister of agriculture.

In the budget the Liberals laid out a proposal that was far from specific and raised more questions than it answered: "The government will examine proposals for the acquisition of the cars, taking into account the interests of producers, shippers and railways and the need to make the most efficient use of the cars. The Minister of Transport will be authorized to adjust regulated freight rates effective August 1, 1998 by 75 cents per tonne on average to cover the cost of the acquisition".

Shortly after this announcement it was reported that the government was looking for somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250 million for the cars. However, this was only a rumour. There was no substantiation and no firm proposals put forward. There was no explanation as to how long the 75 cent per tonne surcharge would remain. There was no explanation as to the replacement process for replacing these hopper cars. There was no suggestion as to how they might be maintained. There was no suggestion as to how they might be allocated.

What the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport are asking are for farmers to buy these cars. They will have no locomotives to pull these cars. They have no idea as to what kind of an allocation process will be put in place for these cars. Yet they are supposed to put the financing together and go storming ahead with this process.

It sounds an awful lot like the way the minister of agriculture handled the whole Crow situation. When the Crow buyout was announced it was supposed to be offset by efficiencies in rail transportation. The problem is the minister of agriculture forgot to address the issue of the efficiencies before he ended the Crow. It was kind of like putting the cart in front of the horse.

Certainly in this whole Crow fiasco there were a lot of mistakes made. Certain crops like forage were not included in the payment even though they were part of the regular rotation of eligible crops. There were instances where a renter and a land owner were going to arbitration and it was costing them an exorbitant amount, anywhere between $500 and $1,500 a day for arbitration for a cheque that may not be much more than that.

Cheques were to be mailed out in January. However, there are still constituents in my riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster who have not received that initial Crow buyout cheque.

I was talking to some people from the Farm Credit Corporation. I told them this whole Crow buyout plan allowed that the payment would be going to FCC for land they held and was being leased by a customer. If the customer chose to use that money as a down payment they could purchase their land and get it back. I asked how this plan worked. The corporation said it was really not working at all because they had to meet a December 31 deadline and many of them still did not have their initial Crow payment.

They were not able to put together interim financing. They were not sure what the amount would be. Therefore, he said: "It is very rare that you would see a client of the Farm Credit Corporation using the Crow buyout as a down payment to repurchase his land". There was some very bad planning in the whole process.

Let us go back to the grain hopper cars. It makes sense for the government to develop a clear plan of action rather than taking the ad hoc approach that we are becoming quickly accustomed to in this House.

The minister of agriculture has stated publicly a bias in favour of some form of producer ownership. If the government would like to see the hopper cars go to the producers, it should develop a transparent and open framework that will accomplish that. The minister of agriculture should not be giving the producer coalition preference when he cannot guarantee the cars will be sold to the producers.

Second, if the government has already made up its mind who should own the cars, there is very little point in having a lengthy consultation process to arrive at a conclusion that perhaps is predetermined. There has been no openness in discussing the negotiations or the intentions of the government other than the minister's expressed wish that the producers somehow buy the hopper cars without knowing the details.

According to the budget, the bottom line is that the hopper cars will be sold. They should be sold. While the government should attempt to get a reasonable amount of money from the sale, producers that utilize the rail system should not be pained unnecessarily for paying off the cars. The ending of the WGTA subsidy has already increased farmers' transportation costs on average by 75 per cent. What is needed in the car disposition process is a clear and concise strategy that will prevent the process from going off the tracks.

The agriculture minister failed in the whole disbanding of the Crow. He is failing on the hopper cars. He failed on the durum trade

dispute Canada had a year or so ago with the United States and he failed on the transportation bill, Bill C-14.

The minister of agriculture spoke to a meeting of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in my province and indicated that he would be a point person, the person who negotiated the best possible transportation act for prairie producers.

Every prairie representative who I know that came before the transportation committee said that there were fundamental flaws with Bill C-14 which needed to be changed. If it would be enacted, it should be fair both to shippers and the railways. The minister of agriculture failed to represent that interest, which showed how hopelessly inadequate he was or how inconsistent he was in keeping his word.

I want to briefly touch on the reduction of the dairy subsidy and the creation of a single federal food inspection agency, which are also parts of the budget.

With regard to the reduction in the dairy subsidy, the Reform Party has stated that the supply managed sectors must not rely on federal subsidies to sustain their existence in the marketplace. Instead, producers must rely on their competitive advantage and create an environment that is viable, self-reliant and market driven.

The Liberal government has failed to come clean with producers when it told them that the status quo approach with a few cosmetic changes would allow the supply managed sectors to go unhindered into the 21st century. Once again, the government has relied on an ad hoc approach to the detriment of Canadian farmers.

As far as supply management is concerned, before the election Liberal candidates and Liberal members of Parliament were suggesting that article XI was safe, that they would defend article XI under the GATT. Once they got into power, they quickly broke that promise as they broke many others. They said, sorry, we did not have enough support in the international community. We had to break our word.

I fear that the Liberals are doing the same with supply managed industries. They are making promises that they are not going to be able to keep and that is unfair.

One of the promises they broke was the discontinuation of the dairy subsidy. I heard nothing prior to the last election that a Liberal government would discontinue the dairy subsidy. In power, that is what it has turned around and done.

Reform was very open. We had a dialogue with the supply managed industries. We said that in the overall scope of things we would reduce and eliminate the dairy subsidy, but we would do it in co-operation with the industry. The industry would know what was going on and there would be other avenues that it could follow to compensate for the losses the farmers would have.

The Liberals were not open and straightforward with the industry. They mislead the industry and now they are pulling the rug out from under an industry that was not prepared to deal with the end of the dairy subsidy. That is not good government and that is not a good way to deal with the agriculture sector.

As far as the single food inspection agency is concerned, that is a positive development if it brings about the forecast of expenditure reductions and if it continues to provide the service that is required.

It is about time the government realized that amalgamating the same services of three departments under one department will promote efficiencies financially while reducing the duplication among various levels of government and government departments.

It is clear that some of the other federal departments should follow this and reduce inefficiencies. We have to be vigilant to make sure that the government actually reduces the departments where there is overlap rather than reshuffle people around, create this new single inspection agency, but yet keep unnecessary bodies around in the other three departments because it is not prepared to make the cuts and do the decisive things that need to be done in the department of agriculture.

The Liberal delay in addressing the deficit will cost Canadian taxpayers in excess of $10 billion. If Canadians would have elected a Reform government in 1993, by the year 2000, taxpayers would have been $10 billion better off than they are under this Liberal government because of its mismanagement of the economy and of the budget.

A Reform government would have halted this waste by balancing the books more quickly. Furthermore with a balanced budget taxpayers would see a sustainability of funding for social programs and tax relief.

That is the compassionate way to deal with seniors. That is the compassionate and right way to deal with our youth. That is the right way to deal with the agriculture sector as well.

The sustainability of Canada's social safety net, job creation and a prosperous farming sector can only be achieved by creating a healthy economy through a balanced budget, reduced federal spending and a shrinking federal debt which will result in modest surpluses and a growing economy. That comes from proper management and proper budgeting and a finance minister that has more courage than our current finance minister.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question. The member for Lambton-Middlesex talked about the sale of 13,000 hopper cars, which is an extremely important issue in my riding and in my area.

Most of the time, when one wants to buy a used product such as a car, one goes to the lot and asks the sales person what the price is. He or she will say that the price of the car is $5,000, $3,000 or $10,000.

In the case of the producer coalition which wants to buy the 13,000 hopper cars, the Minister of Finance or Treasury Board or the Minister of Transport or whoever is responsible will not tell the farmers what is the asking price for the cars.

Does she really think it is fair to ask producers to come up with a proposal to buy the cars when they are not told what is the asking price for those cars? They have not been given the details of how those cars will be administered and allocated after they have been purchased.

[The Economy, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government of Saskatchewan tabled a balanced budget with a plan to continue balancing its budget in the coming years. NDP governments are not renowned for being good keepers of the purse. Just look at the Bob Rae disaster.

Liberals will vilify Klein and Harris for moving from red ink to black and for cutting up their credit cards. But now even the timid NDP and the Quebec separatist government are singing off the Reform song sheet. The sweet melody is: Balanced budgets create jobs and preserve funding for health care and education.

Canadians knew that Liberals were not as committed to deficit reduction as were Klein and Harris, but they are shocked and angered that even the NDP and the separatists are leaving the Liberals in the dust. Surely the Liberal government must be ashamed to know that it is the worst money manager in the country.

[Contraventions Act, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief. I would like to take this opportunity, particularly when the Minister of Justice is with us, to say that when his department brings forward good laws we can move co-operatively to have the legislation pass quickly through the House. It is in stark contrast to legislation such as Bill C-68, which was a bad law and which the minister had considerable difficulty getting through the House.

The bill is basically cosmetic, but it does provide minor improvements to existing legislation. The bill permits changes to prosecution by provincial attorneys general or their agents. This is an improvement and it will likely reduce the cost of enforcement. That is one reason why we can support it. Therefore, we would like to see this bill passed and go to the Senate to become the law of the land.

[Contraventions Act, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he would make it clear that the wording does not change the effect of the legislation. In other words, by adding the words "under the act" to replace by means of a ticket, are the same ends being accomplished?

That is my understanding but I want to confirm with the parliamentary secretary that this does not change the substance of the legislation.

[Contraventions Act, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will add a few comments to those made by my colleague on the other side of the House, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.

We do support this bill. It is not providing major changes and seems to be streamlining the justice system somewhat. It will provide a procedure for the prosecution of regulatory contraventions as designated by the governor in council through what is essentially a ticketing scheme much like that of highway traffic offences.

This bill assists the process by introducing administrative agreements of the provinces and territories, their municipalities and agents to utilize existing resources and to share the revenues generated.

We have looked at the bill and I have been in communication with my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot, who is the justice critic for our caucus. He informs me that the bill will not forfeit provisions. The forfeiture of provisions in fact will be maintained and the provinces have agreed to this legislation.

The bill will make our justice system more effective and therefore I am happy to add my support to Bill C-16.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, March 27th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-250, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act.

Madam Speaker, currently under the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act the Prime Minister has complete latitude in determining when general elections and byelections will be held. This is unacceptable to Canadians who want a little more certainty as to when they will go to the ballot box.

This bill would not contravene the Constitution Act of Canada, but would make changes to existing legislation so there would be fixed elections. General elections would generally be held every four years and byelections could only be held in the fall or the spring of the year, thus bringing certainty to a very uncertain era.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Byelections, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party made remarkable gains in the six byelections yesterday.

Liberal patronage opened the way for the election in five safe Liberal ridings. Two of those safe seats gave the Liberals a scare last night, thanks to Reform.

The byelections are over but the issues remain. Will the new backbencher from Labrador fight to correct the injustice to his constituents posed by the Churchill Falls hydroelectric contract? Will the backbencher from Etobicoke North insist that the finance minister abolish the GST like he promised? Will the backbencher from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte demand that the Liberals stop breaking their pledge to allow free votes in the House of Commons? Will the two new Quebec ministers realize that a majority of Canadians do not want special distinct society status for Quebec but rather equality of all provinces?

I want to thank the six excellent Reform candidates who capably communicated the Reform platform. I want to thank the thousands of voters who said no to Liberal nonsense and yes to Reform common sense.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-14. I hope I remember to call it Bill C-14. This bill had another title in the last session, Bill C-101. It is one of the bills the government brought back at its original stage. I talked about flip-flops earlier. The reinstatement of bills is another Liberal flip-flop. They said it was an abhorrent practice while in opposition yet they have followed that same practice themselves.

It is rather amazing we are already at the third reading debate of Bill C-14 on this Tuesday morning. I left on Thursday and was back in my riding over the weekend to attend to commitments. There were no sign that Bill C-14 would come up for debate. However, the government suddenly decided to slip it on to the Order Paper on Thursday and the House was doing report stage on Friday and Monday. One has to wonder about the motivation of the Liberal government in bringing this bill in around a weekend and trying to move it quickly through the House. I believe there is a little bit of mischief involved in the scheduling of Bill C-14.

What I will be talking about is primarily the rail transportation component of Bill C-14, although the bill is broader. I would like to bring to the attention of the House, and particularly to the attention of Liberal members, the market difference between rail transportation and other modes of transportation.

The best illustration that I can offer is the difference between rail and air transportation. When I want to fly home to Saskatchewan I go to the airport where I have access to more than one airline. I can decide what time I want to fly and which airline to use, based on the schedules and services they provide. Madam Speaker, when you want to fly back to New Brunswick you have some of the same opportunities. I suggest that when the Minister of Transport flies back to his riding in Victoria he also has a choice of airlines and times that he can fly. The same is true of the minister of agriculture when he flies back to Regina.

My constituents and thousands of prairie producers in the grain growing region of Canada are dependent on transportation for their very livelihood. However, they do not have the same options and opportunities as the Minister of Transport, the minister of agriculture or even you and I have, Madam Speaker, as to how we are going to get from here back to our ridings.

Prairie producers have to ship their commodity, primarily grain, through rail as it is the only commercially feasible means of transportation that they have. They are captive to two railways and at most times one railway. They have no opportunity to take their commodity down to the station to decide on which rail line they want to ship their products. That puts them in a category which is classified as being captive shippers.

It creates real problems for the industry if there is not legislation in place that ensures balance and fairness when disputes arise between the shipper and the transporter of these goods.

A couple of clauses in Bill C-14 are particularly obnoxious to shippers, primarily in the prairies but also right across the country. The most odious of these clauses in the bill are subclauses 27(2) and 27(3). The other clause that has caused a great deal of consternation is clause 112.

If it was just myself who was standing here and complaining about these clauses, perhaps members might question whether or not the concern was a significant factor. However, group after group appeared before the transport committee and talked about the inadequacies of Bill C-14 and particularly the clauses that I mentioned.

A number of shippers appeared before the committee. I have a partial list of those shippers which is a who's who of the shipping industry and farm organizations across the country. I am going to list a group of organizations which has stated their public concern or opposition to subclauses 27(2) and 27(3).

They include the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Pool Elevators, the United Grain Growers, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Pioneer Grain Company, Cargill, the Western Canadian Shippers Coalition, the Canadian Dehydrators Association, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the National

Farmers Union, Southern Rails Co-operative, the Canadian Chemical Producers Association, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Committee, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, the Chamber of Maritime Commerce, Wabush Mines, Great Western Rural Development Corporation, Novacor Chemicals Limited, Luscar Ltd., Stelco. The list is longer but this is a who's who of shippers in Canada that have expressed opposition to subclauses 27(2) and 27(3) of Bill C-14.

The shippers hoped they would have an opportunity to see the bill amended. They wanted to see clause 27 deleted from the bill. They asked the government to do that. The former Minister of Transport and the Liberal members on the committee refused, in spite of an overwhelming cry from people against this clause in the bill.

There was a cabinet shuffle and a new session of Parliament started after the Christmas holidays and the new year break. Hope was rekindled in the hearts of many farmers in western Canada and many shippers across the country that perhaps with this change of leadership in the Department of Transport, new members on the transport committee and time for the government to digest all of the opposition to Bill C-101, which became Bill C-14, that it might change its attitude and become more concerned about some very real problems that occurred with the bill.

Many people had an opportunity to contact the new minister and ask him, a western Canadian minister, to reconsider Bill C-14. As the member for Kindersley-Lloydminister on behalf of my constituents I wrote a letter to the minister on February 8. Unfortunately the minister has not even seen fit to answer my letter. I have not received a response even though it was written a month and a half ago. There seems to be no concern on the part of Liberal ministers to whether they answer their mail.

In my letter I stated: "A number of farmers in the livestock industry in British Columbia have expressed some concern over legislation initiated by the previous Minister of Transport. Under Bill C-101", and that is the number of the old bill, "grain destined for export would be under a freight rate cap, whereas freight rates for grain intended for domestic use in British Columbia would not be capped. It has been suggested that rail rates to the lower mainland of British Columbia for grain would be approximately $10 a tonne higher than grain destined for the export market. The livestock industry feels that the $10 a tonne price difference will have a detrimental impact on farmers facing increased costs.

"As well, there is some concern by prairie producers that a two-tiered freight rate may instigate allegations from outside our borders that the lower rate is a subsidy unacceptable under GATT. A further concern expressed in no uncertain terms by shippers and producers of goods shipped by rail was a strong opposition to clause 27(2) of Bill C-101. It was argued that this clause provided the railway with an unfair advantage when challenged by shippers over unfair, insufficient or overpriced service. This factor is extremely important to shippers of prairie grain who are captive to the railroads.

"With that said, the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament has resulted in Bill C-101 dying on the Order Paper. If you intend to reintroduce similar legislation in the new session of Parliament, I would call on you to make the necessary changes to alleviate the discrepancy in freight rates and remove clause 27(2) from the bill".

I felt that this would be just one more letter that would perhaps tip the scales in favour of the shippers to provide more neutral legislation, better legislation for the Canadian economy but the minister did not even have the good sense to answer my letter.

Mine was not the only letter. Other letters went out from shippers asking the minister to take this opportunity to reconsider the bill. In fact, the minister said: "Come and talk to me. I am open to changing the bill. There is a good chance that we will change some of the more reprehensible clauses in the bill".

A number of shippers came to Ottawa and met with the new Minister of Transport. They were very disappointed in the results of that meeting. I have a copy of a letter written to the minister by Mr. Alex Graham, president of the Alberta Wheat Pool. He is also the chairman of Prince Rupert Grain and Pacific Terminals:

The competitive access provisions provided in the legislation include the right of shippers to obtain a ruling from the Canadian Transportation Agency on rates or service, where the shipper has access to only one railway. As we said during our meeting, subsections 27(2) and (3) inject subjective language into the agency's decision-making process.

Our legal counsel advises us that any time subjective language is placed in legislation, it results in legal challenges to define the language. We have been told that the legislative requirement for the agency to be satisfied that the shipper will suffer "substantial commercial harm" could result in as many legal actions as there are negotiations with the railways.

Mr. Minister, during our meeting, and for the first time since this debate began, we were optimistic that our message was actually being received by the government. We were encouraged by your stated commitment to investigate fully our claims that these sections will result in increased litigation around applications to the Canadian Transportation Agency, and to take action if you found the claims to be valid.

However, as report stage debate began in the House of Commons this morning, without any indication of additional amendments to address our concerns, it appears that there was really no intention to address them in the first place.

As we said in our meeting, subsections 27(2) and (3) fly totally in the face of the intent of Bill C-14, which was to create a more commercial transportation environment, and to facilitate direct commercial negotiations on rates and services between shippers and carriers, without government or legal intervention.

The government's approach to developing this legislation also flies in the face of its promise to enhance the ability of Canadian industry to compete on world markets. As has been pointed out on many occasions, all of the major shippers in Canada called for the removal of subsections 27(2) and (3), citing the disastrous effects these subsections will have on their ability to negotiate with carriers, and to remain competitive. They were supported by four provincial governments, and by a number of industry and municipal associations. We are perplexed and disturbed that the government chose not to respond positively to this overwhelming consensus.

As long as this bill is before the House of Commons, Mr. Minister, you have the opportunity to make it right. In the interests of Canada's shippers, and the Canadian economy, we urge you to do so by removing subsections 27(2) and (3) or at least refer it back to the Standing Committee on Transport for specific and narrow examination before we all suffer the consequences.

That is a strongly worded letter from a respected person in the grains industry, someone whose constituency's livelihood depends on its ability to ship products at a fair price from the prairie region to port.

I also have a news release issued by United Grain Growers. It strongly condemns the government for the way it handled Bill C-14 with its heavy handed approach to saying it is interested in making some changes to the bill to make it more balanced as it relates to both shippers and the railroads, and then throwing dirt in its face, more or less, by slamming the door and saying it will not submit this bill to any changes whatsoever.

The government is ramming it through at report stage without considering any of the good amendments put forward, several by my colleague, the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, and by other members, which would have made the bill far more acceptable to the shippers.

To help us realize how important this is, the rail transportation sector, particularly in the prairies, used to be governed by the Western Grain Transportation Act, the WGTA. This legislation was considered to be shipper friendly. That is one reason the government brought in legislation that tipped the balance to being railway friendly, Bill C-14.

Under the Western Grain Transportation Act railways made their profits, guess where, shipping western grain. Here we had a piece of legislation that was shipper friendly and yet it was the shipping of prairie grain that was regulated under the act which provided the railways, CP and CN, with some of their largest profits.

It boggles my mind to think how we could tip the scales in favour of the railways and introduce and pass railway friendly legislation to allow the railways not only to make more money but to hold a hammer over the industry in such an unfair manner. For the Liberal government to be so unconcerned about that is beyond belief.

The people who presented the briefs to the transport committee, the many delegations that came as witnesses, must be shaking their heads. I read the list of the organizations that made submissions to the transport committee and said they had very grave concerns with this bill.

They must wonder why they bothered coming to Ottawa. There was clear consensus that there needed to be changes to this bill. This is one of the most clear indications of concern in a bill that I have seen since I have been here after first being elected to the House in 1993.

I have never seen such a strong, united effort on the part of the grains industry. One criticism of the industry is that it never gets its act together. One group will tell Ottawa it must do this, and the next group will say no, it has to go in the other direction. This did not happen in this case.

The groups that appeared for the transport committee were almost united in the their condemnation of clause 27(2) and clause 112. Yet the government chose to ignore them. It did not seem to care. Perhaps adding 5 cents more in value to CN shares it was selling was more important than the entire western grains industry; not only western grain but potash, iron ore and coal.

We have talked a lot about Atlantic Canada. Some Liberals from Atlantic Canada who just toed the party line as they had been told have asked why we suddenly have an interest in Atlantic Canada. One group that appeared before the committee was Wabash Mines from Labrador. It told us the bill was flawed and needed to be changed. It was not only western Canadians who were concerned; the concern came from across the country.

Did the members who serve that part of the country speak on behalf of the livelihood of their constituents, the job creators in their constituencies? No, they were silent. They let the flawed legislation progress and did not even speak against it. This is truly unfortunate.

Now we are at third reading. This is our final chance to debate Bill C-14. It cannot be amended in any substantive way. We can no longer delete clauses. We have gone past that stage. It is very sad to realize that so many people were opposed to a piece of legislation and the government would not budge. In the past significant concessions have usually been made when there was general opposition to a bill not only from members across the floor but from the public at large. However, in this case the government chose to have deaf ears and not hear what Canadians were saying.

This is extremely unfortunate. It means the bill will have to be changed in the future and it will be a lengthy process. I assure the House that there are members on this side listening to Canadians. We are taking notes and there will be a day of reckoning for the

arrogance of the Liberals and their inability to hear the concerns of Canadians.

I am thankful that through the democratic election process we will have a chance in the future to redress these wrongs.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I will ask a brief question of the member for Dartmouth.

He began his speech by talking about a new trading agreement. He talked about NAFTA, GATT and the like. I remember before the 1988 election when the Liberals were fighting the NAFTA agreement, they had advertisements in which they erased the boundary between Canada and United States. Now he has the gall to stand up in the House and support NAFTA, saying how wonderful it is. That is a big flip-flop on the part of the Liberals.

The transportation act we are dealing with, Bill C-14 replaces the old WGTA. The minister of agriculture stated as late as November 1994 that the Crow benefit was going to remain intact, that he had no intention of abolishing it. Three months later, in the 1995 budget, the Crow benefit was gone, another big Liberal flip-flop.

The member is praising the privatization of CN. Reformers have always been on the record as favouring privatization where the private sector can do a better job than the public sector. History is proving that position is right. I would like to remind the hon. member that his party's position was the opposite. It said that privatizing CN was despicable. I believe those were the words Liberals used. Now he is praising the privatization of CN. That is the third flip-flop.

The fourth flip-flop is that he said there should be a guarantee that the CN line remain between Montreal and Halifax. This member is from Dartmouth. He should have the interests of his constituents in mind, yet he is not supporting Motion No. 38 put forward by the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, a motion that would have put that in the legislation.

My question is really simple. Why should we believe anything a Liberal says?